Home > Uncategorized > No Police State Yet

No Police State Yet

While there are some people who will doubtless go out of their way to find fault with Scalias’s opinion, those people are ridiculous in the extreme.

Good job SCOTUS, at least parts of the constitution still mean something, even in DC (just not at the White House). I can’t find many faults with any of the three opinions. The court was united, but the opinion had two concurrences. All three make good points, and the general feeling seems to be that this wasn’t the “right” case to set a broad precedent with.

The opinion(s), if you are interested.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 2012/01/24 at 01:41

    I’m happy with the decision, but I’m not convinced in the least with any of the reasons. According to Scalia’s opinion, police can ask AT&T for user information and if AT&T agrees, then it’s all perfectly legal. Whatever you think the “free market” can fix, it can’t do it after someone gets tracked and goes to prison as a result. Then according to Alito’s opinion, long surveillance periods is the problem. Since the police can follow someone with a stake out, vehicles, helicopters, and satellite images, I don’t see how that flies. All Alito has pointed out is a matter of harassment by the police, which though not legal, is not a Fourth Amendment issue.

    I don’t think any of the 7 Justices and 2 political figures on the bench had any legal reason for their decision. They just recognized that warrantless GPS tracking is something no one but law enforcement likes.

  2. 2012/01/24 at 08:59

    Your omnipotence comes out again, you can see through mere writings and into the very hearts and minds of people.

    Are you sure there isn’t a God? And you are it? Because your close to convincing me.

  3. 2012/01/24 at 23:51

    Again, I just don’t find the reasons convincing. The police can walk onto my property as often as they please so long as I have no idea or don’t explicitly tell them not to do so. By Scalia’s logic, they can no longer do that. Yet even worse is Alito who said there is an expectation of privacy. What stops the police from following me and staking out my home? They can know where I am at all times if they want, so long as they do it manually.

    I have the sense that there is a good reason the government shouldn’t be able to stalk people so easily, but I haven’t heard a good articulation of why.

  4. 2012/01/25 at 09:57

    Well as I mentioned, I think this isn’t the right case. There is another case right behind this one that is very similar, but different is several ways that may lend itself more to setting a clear precedent.

    I have to remember the gun case in DC where pro and anti gun people were both upset because the court didn’t really address the issues people were hoping for.

    Skip ahead to a non-DC case, McDonald v. Chicago, and you see them set a clear precedent, satisfying people on both sides, simply because at least a determination has been made.

    We’ll have to see what they do with the west coast case coming up.

    (When I find the name I’ll add it, I just can’t remember. The guy has an appeal pending in Washington state, and I think someplace else also.)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: